5 ms·

I'm glad more renewables are coming online, but that's not the 24/7 base capacity that is really needed to fully replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind are cheap

by mjhay 2y ago

I'm glad more renewables are coming online, but that's not the 24/7 base capacity that is really needed to fully replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind are cheap now, but they only generate power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Thus, energy storage on a huge scale is needed if they are to replace fossil fuels. Power grid unreliability is politically untenable. People will march headfirst into the destruction of industrial civilization, ignoring the warnings of climate scientists, before they will accept an electrical grid that is offline for 5% of the time. For as difficult as nuclear is, storage is much harder yet. Nuclear is proven tech. It works at scale. The main obstacles political, but they are much more easily overcome than objections people would have with an unreliable grid.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Baseload power producers ceased to be relevant decades ago. The nuclear industry has coopted the term because they know they can’t compete on cost. With storage now coming online in large enough quantities to meaningfully affect the grid the window of opportunity for nuclear energy has passed. It had a chance if the reactors started in the 2000s had delivered on time and on budget. They did not deliver. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/
- mjhay 2y ago
  Baseload power is still very much relevant. People will not tolerate power outages when it's cloudy. Yes, storage has advanced, but it's nowhere near the capacity that's needed. If it were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's far from the capacity of existing nuclear power supplies, right now - much less what is needed.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Given your answer it does not seem like you opened the linked article. Storage in California is supplying the equivalent to 4-6 nuclear reactors during the evening peaks. They are supplying nuclear scale level energy. We are having this discussion because a nuclear energy startup sees their window of opportunity vanish. Baseload on the demand side still exists. Baseload powerplants not so much. Look at the rate California is installing storage. Given the current rate, in 20 years time when what we install today reaches EOL, California will have 10 hours of storage during the summer peak. When simulating the Australian grid with 5 hours of storage at mean power levels that leads to 99% reliability. [1] A nuclear plant to solve the last 1% is a non-starter. Of course we also do not only rely on storage, there is also: - Large grid to decouple weather patterns - Demand response People already get on hourly contracts and schedule car charging for when it is cheap. The next step is automating it and making it more streamlined. Some companies already support chargers which integrate with the pricing, they can even give you money back through demand response. [1]: https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8 https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8
- Herz 2y ago
  It's worth noting that California is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, yet it faces extremely high electricity bills to achieve its goals. On the other hand, nuclear power is criticized while France, which relies heavily on nuclear energy, enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe. Claiming that nuclear power is an irrelevant option in 2024 for decarbonizing by 2050 is simply false. The timeline for nuclear construction is well-documented and realistic. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... How can you apply California's model to poorer countries when even California hasn't fully decarbonized? France, on the other hand, achieved significant decarbonization decades ago. It's ironic that people like you see the fight against climate change as an opportunity to attack nuclear power. Be honest about your intentions.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Mostly based on the huge payouts for forest fires and bankruptcy of PG&E. Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building. The future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. Relying on data from the 50-80s to "show" that nuclear is viable today, and also only looking at the reactor and not the entire plant, is essentially lying with statistics. Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement to commercial operation. Given the extreme costs of and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power investing in it today prolongs climate change. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-l...
    - Herz 2y ago
      > Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building, the future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. You are cherry-picking examples to support your argument, which is intellectually dishonest. For instance, if I took the construction time of the slowest wind farm and presented it as the norm, it would be equally misleading. I provide average and mean construction times, which are more representative of the overall picture. > Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement until commercial operation. This is another example of cherry-picking. Western countries have not invested in nuclear power on a large scale in recent decades. However, countries like South Korea and China, which have heavily invested in nuclear energy, have achieved much shorter construction times. You mention statistics but fail to explain how building one nuclear plant per decade in the West represents any meaningful statistical evidence. It is misleading to generalize from such a small sample size. > Given the extreme costs and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power, investing in it today prolongs climate change. Germany's Energiewende, which has cost 600 billion euros over 20 years, has not achieved significant decarbonization. Renewables remain the most heavily subsidized energy source in Europe. To understand your position better, do you prioritize excluding nuclear power or achieving decarbonization?

by mjhay 2y ago

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

Baseload power producers ceased to be relevant decades ago. The nuclear industry has coopted the term because they know they can’t compete on cost. With storage now coming online in large enough quantities to meaningfully affect the grid the window of opportunity for nuclear energy has passed. It had a chance if the reactors started in the 2000s had delivered on time and on budget. They did not deliver. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/

mjhay 2y ago
Baseload power is still very much relevant. People will not tolerate power outages when it's cloudy. Yes, storage has advanced, but it's nowhere near the capacity that's needed. If it were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's far from the capacity of existing nuclear power supplies, right now - much less what is needed.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Given your answer it does not seem like you opened the linked article. Storage in California is supplying the equivalent to 4-6 nuclear reactors during the evening peaks. They are supplying nuclear scale level energy. We are having this discussion because a nuclear energy startup sees their window of opportunity vanish. Baseload on the demand side still exists. Baseload powerplants not so much. Look at the rate California is installing storage. Given the current rate, in 20 years time when what we install today reaches EOL, California will have 10 hours of storage during the summer peak. When simulating the Australian grid with 5 hours of storage at mean power levels that leads to 99% reliability. [1] A nuclear plant to solve the last 1% is a non-starter. Of course we also do not only rely on storage, there is also: - Large grid to decouple weather patterns - Demand response People already get on hourly contracts and schedule car charging for when it is cheap. The next step is automating it and making it more streamlined. Some companies already support chargers which integrate with the pricing, they can even give you money back through demand response. [1]: https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8 https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8
Herz 2y ago
It's worth noting that California is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, yet it faces extremely high electricity bills to achieve its goals. On the other hand, nuclear power is criticized while France, which relies heavily on nuclear energy, enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe. Claiming that nuclear power is an irrelevant option in 2024 for decarbonizing by 2050 is simply false. The timeline for nuclear construction is well-documented and realistic. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... How can you apply California's model to poorer countries when even California hasn't fully decarbonized? France, on the other hand, achieved significant decarbonization decades ago. It's ironic that people like you see the fight against climate change as an opportunity to attack nuclear power. Be honest about your intentions.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Mostly based on the huge payouts for forest fires and bankruptcy of PG&E. Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building. The future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. Relying on data from the 50-80s to "show" that nuclear is viable today, and also only looking at the reactor and not the entire plant, is essentially lying with statistics. Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement to commercial operation. Given the extreme costs of and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power investing in it today prolongs climate change. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-l...
  - Herz 2y ago
    > Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building, the future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. You are cherry-picking examples to support your argument, which is intellectually dishonest. For instance, if I took the construction time of the slowest wind farm and presented it as the norm, it would be equally misleading. I provide average and mean construction times, which are more representative of the overall picture. > Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement until commercial operation. This is another example of cherry-picking. Western countries have not invested in nuclear power on a large scale in recent decades. However, countries like South Korea and China, which have heavily invested in nuclear energy, have achieved much shorter construction times. You mention statistics but fail to explain how building one nuclear plant per decade in the West represents any meaningful statistical evidence. It is misleading to generalize from such a small sample size. > Given the extreme costs and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power, investing in it today prolongs climate change. Germany's Energiewende, which has cost 600 billion euros over 20 years, has not achieved significant decarbonization. Renewables remain the most heavily subsidized energy source in Europe. To understand your position better, do you prioritize excluding nuclear power or achieving decarbonization?